BackgroundPresentation of research at annual national orthopaedic conferences not only serves as a forum for the dissemination of knowledge but is also often a requirement of orthopaedic training programmes. The expected outcome is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publication rates vary for a variety of reasons. The objective of this study was to determine publication rates of presentations from our local Singapore Orthopaedic Association (SOA) annual scientific meeting (ASM) and some of the potential associated factors. We also compared our findings to equivalent meetings worldwide to assess value of scientific content of various orthopaedic conferences.MethodsAll presentations of six SOA ASMs were entered into a database. Using presentation titles, author names and keywords in PubMed and Google Scholar, we determined how many presentations progressed to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Various comparisons were made to determine factors that could influence publication rates. A comparison with national orthopaedic meetings of America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Turkey and Brazil was also conducted.ResultsExcluding the ASMs with less than 4 years of follow-up, the publication rate was 35.8%. Both podium and international presenters were found to have significantly higher publication rates than poster and local presenters, respectively, while basic science and clinical research were found to have equivalent rates. Publication rates from other countries’ national conferences ranged between 26.6% and 58.1%.ConclusionsWe suggest that the quality of a presentation is related to its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings support the general consensus that the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is the gold standard for the dissemination of orthopaedic knowledge updates and advancements in our specialty. Each national orthopaedic association could determine the ratio of “presentations at ASM” to “publication within five years of presentation” and use this as a measure of their annual conference’s impact on the addition and advancement to the orthopaedic literature. This tool may in turn assist clinicians in determining which meetings to attend.

The Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with 6 subscales assessing chronic groin pain. It was validated on a small sample of Danish subjects using Classical Test Theory. No validation has been done in English. This study addresses this using a larger sample and the Rasch model of Itemised Response Theory, an increasingly popular validation method that converts ordinal data to interval data. 190 English-speaking, active symptomatic adults completed the HAGOS for analysis of Rasch parameters of unidimensionality and fit for each subscale. Items not fitting the model were either modified by collapsing Likert scale categories or removed from its subscale which was then reanalysed. The process was repeated until the subscale showed good fit and unidimensionality. Rasch principle component analysis (PCA) was used to detect alternate dimensions within each subscale. Person separation reliability and Cronbach’s α were calculated for test-retest reliability and internal consistency respectively for all subscales. Only subscales for physical activity and activities of daily living revealed good overall fit to the Rasch model. All other subscales required modification with items removed from the symptoms, quality of life and sport and recreation subscales. PCA of the pain subscale revealed an alternative dimension worth 2.1 Eigenvalues, onto which 4 items were loaded, all related to weight bearing activities. As a result the pain subscale was further analysed as 2 separate subscales for pain on weight bearing and general pain. Person separation reliability ranged between 0.73–0.91 and Cronbach’s α between 0.81–0.91 for all modified subscales suggesting good test-retest reliability and internal consistency respectively. Initial Rasch analysis reveals that the HAGOS may not be unidimensional in its measurement properties. Further analysis suggests that, with modifications, this may be achieved although further validation is needed.